This morning, I published a video in a slightly different format from the one I usually use. Firstly, it is audio only. That just seemed to suit what I wanted to do. Secondly, it is as much a personal reflection as it is about current events. The topic it addresses, which is why I use social media as much as I do, is, however, one that will be of interest to readers here.
The audit version is here:
The transcript is:
It is sometimes worth standing back a bit and asking why you choose to do certain things in life. I thought this might be an appropriate theme for a post on this channel.
Let me start with an appropriate question. That question is why do I spend so much time producing social media content?
I first started blogging on what was then the Tax Research Blog, and which is now the Funding the Future blog, in June 2006, and it has been published consistently since then, with an average of 3.3 posts per day, 365 days a year, every day ever since. It now has around 20,000 reads a day, on average.
I joined Twitter in 2008 but did not take it seriously for another five years. Since then, I've published about a hundred thousand tweets and have around a quarter of a million followers, which I find quite extraordinary given that I am a political economist and accountant, and no one else in either category appears to come close to that figure in the UK without also working in the media.
Other platforms, including Facebook, LinkedIn, Mastodon, Instagram, TikTok and others, have all followed with varying degrees of success, but without a doubt, my third largest platform is now YouTube, and the likelihood is that my video traffic will soon exceed that on my blog. For someone aged 66, I create a lot more social media content than most people do.
So why do that? To put it another way, why is it that I wake up most mornings at around six and have, by around eight o'clock, usually published three blog posts, with it not being unusual for a fourth or fifth to be added soon thereafter?
And why do I now dedicate up to a day a week of my time to producing videos?
The cynic might suggest that this is all a giant exercise in massaging my ego, and such comments turn up from trolls almost every day, somewhere, pretty much without fail. If that, however, was true, I would have given up long ago. No one seeking to stay in touch with their sanity would voluntarily post extensively on social media in a way that is bound to attract the hatred and venom of right-wing trolls, just for the sake of their ego. I most certainly do not. Instead, when I started out on this process, I had a three-fold objective.
The first was to point out the harm that I thought that tax havens caused in this world.
The second was to explain that this harm was not accidental but was the deliberate and predictable consequence of the chosen behaviour of those who created and used tax havens, or secrecy jurisdictions, as I prefer to call them.
Thirdly, I wanted to propose ideas for both mitigating and even eliminating those harms.
To put it another way, I identified a problem, I noted its cause, and I proposed a solution.
That has remained my motivation in all my social media postings ever since.
I am not in any way suggesting that I was the sole contributor to the transformation of international regulation that has significantly reduced the secrecy that all the users of tax havens could avail themselves of when I began my blog. But given the enormous amount of attention that this blog got during that period, when I, and others like John Christensen, then of the Tax Justice Network, ran this campaign, what happened on my blog did, I think it fair to say, make a substantial difference to the way in which the offshore world operated.
I renamed tax havens as secrecy jurisdictions to deliberately highlight that they were abusive, not places of sanctuary.
The Isle of Man government had its income cut in almost half as a consequence of my exposure of the massive subsidy that it received from the UK government as a result of overpayments of VAT to it.
The attempts by the governments of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man to avoid EU regulation were exposed with all my arguments being proved to be correct by subsequent events when they were forced to change their laws in ways that I had predicted. Those places were, as a consequence, forced to begin automatic information exchange of data to countries like the UK regarding the income of those persons making use of their facilities.
My work on country-by-country reporting, consistently published and promoted on that blog, was eventually adopted by David Cameron in 2013 when he was UK Prime Minister, and it then became OECD policy for large company corporate tax reporting from 2015. As a consequence, it has become a legal requirement in more than 70 countries around the world, largely shattering the secret use of tax haven entities by those corporations, at least with regard to disclosure to their tax authorities.
I mention all these points because, firstly, they show that persistently writing a blog can make a difference.
Secondly, they demonstrate the solution focus of what I try to do. I am not interested in producing a blog or a YouTube video or anything else that simply lists complaints. That, of course, may be true of some posts when read in isolation, but reading any part of my work in isolation would be a mistake. There is a continuous narrative to it. No complaint has ever not been matched by suggestion as to how things might be done better throughout the entire history of my social media usage.
That being said, the way in which this blog and this YouTube channel have operated has changed over time. New themes, all of them related to the way in which the well-being of people on average and lower incomes around the world can be improved, have developed. That consistency of focus is something that I suspect will always remain within my work.
So, from 2014 onwards, Scottish matters became an issue.
Commentary on the Green New Deal, with which I've been associated since its inception in 2008, has been a long-running theme, which has occasionally cross-fertilised with tax justice concerns.
Issues around modern monetary theory came to the fore after 2010, although I made little or no explicit reference to that idea until about 2015 because I had previously been unaware of it.
I have consistently sought to explain how any government might equitably fund its programs, whether by the use of properly progressive taxation, or socially desirable forms of borrowing that I more correctly identify as savings mechanisms or the straightforward use of government-created money.
Proposals on this theme gave rise to my association with Jeremy Corbyn during his campaign to become leader of the Labour Party in 2015, although I was never a member of that party.
And, throughout this period, a narrative on the continuing failure of political parties of all claimed perspectives has been maintained since almost none appear to have an adequate grasp of the nature of the macroeconomic policies that they should adopt if they are truly to serve the people of the UK or other places and countries.
Most of the ideas I note are also readily translatable to those places.
So why do this? Well, long before 2006, I thought that a better world was possible. I always believed that the way in which I could contribute to this was by creating the ideas that might make it happen. So, for example, whilst John Christensen was very ably leading the campaign of the Tax Justice Network from 2003 onwards, my role was more focused on creating the ideas that underpinned the narrative that it promoted.
Similarly, I've been responsible for quite large parts of the written output of the Green New Deal Group.
And since 2011, I've written a number of books, with more now potentially on their way.
Without exception, the aim has been to facilitate the process of change.
What I always knew was that promoting change would make me unpopular.
It is safe to say that this has been the case. At one time, I upset many of the right-wing think tanks in the USA. I still do upset many of those think tanks in the UK.
There are websites that appear to be dedicated to providing counterarguments to what I propose. and always their argument is the same, albeit in three parts.
It is firstly that I am not competent because it is claimed that I do not understand the theories that support the worldviews of my opponents.
They're wrong about that. I did not become a professor by accident, and I was not a chartered accountant for more than 40 years without developing a considerable understanding of the way that the world really works whilst still making sure that I had a pretty good theoretical understanding of what is claimed about it.
Secondly, they claim, as the big four firms of accountants once did with my proposal for country-by-country reporting, that what I suggest is not technically possible. Those firms were proved wrong, and all of them have since made a great deal of money out of what I proposed, which is more than I ever have.
Those still making such claims are also wrong. I only suggest what is possible, and usually at minimum disruption. I see no point in doing anything else.
And thirdly, then they tend to offer abuse because they realise that their other claims are meaningless.
Why do they do all that? Because what they know is that if my ideas succeeded the hierarchies of power that underpin their ability to capture an excessive proportion of the world's wealth for their own benefit would be challenged. And they do not want that to happen.
They would rather that others suffer poverty, ill health, early death, insecurity, lack of education, prejudice and discrimination than they give up part of their excessive wealth to prevent that happening. My bias is to the poor. Of course, I threaten those with wealth.
That said, I want to make clear that nothing about this is personal. There is not a single person with wealth who I would wish to harm as a consequence of what I propose. And I genuinely think that not a single one of them would be. More than that, I think that all of them would have ample left over to live to excess, despite what I propose.
But I do believe that millions, if not billions, of people could be better off in this world if only its resources were shared more equitably, both now and between generations and with due regard being given to the generations to come. It is because that belief is at the core of my being that I continue to use social media in the way that I do.
This world could be a better place. If my blogging, tweeting and videos can help achieve that, as I know that in some small way they already have, then that is the reward that I seek. And until that happens, or until I can no longer get access to a keyboard or microphone, then it is my plan to carry on. Too many people are suffering for me to think that I could possibly give up.
Please join me on this journey if you would. And if you think it is relevant, please share this if you can.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Why use social media?
1. Mainstream media will not give you a platform, and the stuff they do broadcast is pants.
2. There are at least ¼-million people who listen and learn.
Thank you!
Thank you. Please carry on. Another good that results from your work is education of ignorant people like me.
Thanks
TV has a technique for dealing with people who are anti-corruption, which in the UK means anti-establishment. It subjects them to derision. That’s it. It might be done by the audience, or it might be done by fellow panellists interrupting every few minutes offering derisive comments like “Oh come on!” or “This nonsense again!” while the supposedly neutral show host sits back and allows it. I conclude it’s waste of time going on tv and expecting to get a fair hearing.
pants = ?????
Pants in English English means Underpants not Trousers. Its a polite way of saying Utter Shite.
And thank you Richard, you have been a great “new” economics teacher to me, and to a couple of friends too. Keep up the good work and influence for the good.
Thanks
Pants=rubbish/ nonsense
Thanks for the clarification!
You ideas, blog and books have opened up a new world of possibilities to many of us I’m sure. And your work will continue to make a difference and inspire hope. Thank you.
Thanks, Richard
You need to ‘bang the drum’ about what you have contributed to changing, more often.
Here is ine way. Prepare a standard comment reply with a list of your contribution on secrecy jurisdictions etc., and every time a troll comments, reply with the comment; beginning with something like: ‘Here is what I have done; what have you done?’
That might be a good idea…..
‘Twill be done
I hadn’t seen this before I posted on your top item about the insanity of the Bank of England.
You speak truth to power. Often a lonely journey but I sense you are increasingly joined by others.
Thanks
The big reminder here for me is not why you do this – I know enough about that already and I admire it and it is line with my own questions about these issues since being a boy – but it is the way one conducts oneself whilst you do it.
My view is that I am not so involved as you are (although I work in a public sector that sees the consequences daily of the issues you raise) so I can afford/justify to be more uncompromising to the point of dogma with these issues.
But my perceived dogma about change is NOTHING compared to the dogma that actually imprisons/enslaves us now, the wall of indifference and stubbornness that you come against more than me face to face. If my dogma is my only weapon – what is theirs? Whose dogma is causing more harm? Are we able to discern? Maybe that is where the battle should to be taken – through the observation of outcomes.
Is it dogmatic to insist on state sovereignty on money issues, to take such a hard line attitude when all about us (Neo-liberal/ extreme liberal politics and economics) seeks to deny that sovereignty and award it exclusively and even illegally to certain individual persons?
It is good to remember who you/’we’ are dealing with:
“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft where we are hard, and cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand. They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we
are. They are different. ”
― F. Scott Fitzgerald
So, what effect can ‘reason’, ‘manners’ and ‘erudition’ have on such people?
It is a question that is open – forever – until we have more fairness in the allocation of resources for this blighted species that we are.
Phew!
I saw the headline and thought you were going to give up. That would be a terrible loss.
Thank goodness it wasn’t that. I only wish I’d found your blog earlier than I did.
Given your undoubted results on tax havens and country by country accounting and the sheer volume , range and consistency of your other contributions over the years you should be one of @BBC’s go to ‘alternative’ experts – even within their own inadequate notion of ‘balance’ .
If in some alternative universe @BBC ever decided to implement their original Reithian principles – to ‘inform’ – to investigate and search for truth you would be a regular.
The sheer volume and content of the blog, youtube, tweets, etc must be unique.
Keep going Richard
I will
Thanks
Yes, Andrew Broadbent …Richard’s stamina is amazing. I don’t know how he keeps it going at such a pace, but I’m so glad he does. I’ve learned so much from his blogs and columns, and also learned how much I don’t know. Which is probably even more important.
Thanks Jan
My frustration so that the quite heavy demands of what I call the day job are preventing my doing more right now
I am looking at what to do about that….
Three cheers for you, Richard.
Thank you
Three? Not enough Richard. As far as this 61 year old soon to retire,frequently enraged and despairing civil servant is concerned, three thousand is more appropriate.
This has been maybe your best ever post. A clear and inspiring explanation of what you do and why you do it.
Thank You for all you’ve done.
Thank you
Why do you rob Banks? Because that is where the money is.
Why do social media? Because that is where the “people” are.
Many thanks for a 3rd age re-education and helping me reflect and buttress my critical view of our society. It has also helped me in introducing a degree of critical thought and understanding to my students, blinded as they are to how society could be.
I am having a third age education in YouTube and am really enjoying it
Many thanks for all your various explanations and clarifications. I came here first while trying to reconcile the prevailing neoliberal economics with the Keynesian economics I had studied in the 1960s. Your explanations of MMT and UK Gov economics have been hugely influential, but I’d like to thank you above all for your interest in Scotland, its potential, its politics and its economy. With the SNP not currently the driving force it set out to be, it falls increasingly on the Scots people to address the route to improved prosperity and my view is that this (if it is properly organised) will be more likely to succeed than any political party, given the contempt which Westminster has repeatedly shown to the SNP over the years. So a big thank you, Richard, for your involvement with and understanding of the “Scottish Question”
Thanks, Ken.
This involvement has always been a surprise to me – but I get all the reasons for it and by conviction share the aspiration.
Richard: I simply want to thank you for this particular post and for the insight you share from which I and so many others benefit. KBO.
Thanks for saying so
All strength to you Richard! You are an International Treasure.
Thanks, Michael
Thank you for all you do, on here and on YouTube and Twitter etc. Your work gives people hope that there can be a better future for us all. More power to you!
Thanks
Good job.
Keep going as long as you are able to without compromising your own well-being.
And don’t always be too busy to ride the Caledonian Railway. 🙂 I’d love to see the photo of you standing next to Thomas.
🙂
I read your book The Joy of Tax which, as an accountant, I thoroughly enjoyed and agreed with.
That led to looking for more of your stuff and though I rarely comment I start every day with this newsletter and read all the comments.
It has been, and still is, eye opening.
Thanks
Thank you!